Higher education rediscovers itself

Dartmouth University is the latest of the American colleges to step back from issuing position statements on the varied controversies that seize the popular imagination. The University of Chicago, with its Vietnam-era Kalven Report, embraced a posture of neutrality in the interest of preventing institutions of higher learning from being turned away from education and toward political activism. Over half a century later, more schools are beginning to see the wisdom of such an approach. Dartmouth’s “institutional restraint” policy opens the door slightly further to universities taking stands, but adopts a kind of presumption against doing so. To the extent that momentum builds in favor of remaining at a remove from retail politics and fevered organizing, higher education in the United States will benefit.

When I came of age in the 1980s, the American left was a free speech left. It was common to hear slogans such as, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll die to protect your right to say it.” The American Civil Liberties Union was so committed to its free speech values that the organization defended American Nazis who wanted to assemble for purposes of expression. A massive college campus such as the Florida State University I attended could host a wide spectrum of speakers ranging from far left to Phyllis Schlafly (the traditionalist Catholic conservative) on the right without groups shouting over invited guests and committing assault. All of this was part of how Americans understood their country to be superior to its ideological competitor, the Soviet Union, which vigorously policed expression. Freedom involved a free market of ideas that Americans were largely determined to protect.

Postmodernism, however, captured the imagination of the intellectual vanguard in the United States. While the Enlightenment valued free speech and free inquiry as the surest path to discovering truth, postmoderns emphasized power rather than persuasion as the final decider of disputes. Accordingly, the game moved from debate to displays of strength. If a speaker could be prevented from speaking, then the group that blocked the message could claim victory for its point of view. The group had successfully treated an opposing point of view as so outrageous, so unacceptable, so bigoted and benighted that it should not even be heard. Christians experienced this treatment when various elite figures argued that the case against gay marriage deserved no respect. Ryan Anderson saw his book When Harry became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement removed from Amazon’s offerings for similar reasons. There was no real debate for exactly the reason that the American left refused to countenance the existence of one.

During the heyday of free speech in the United States, institutions such as universities tended to avoid issuing statements about politics. In part, it was wise to stay out of politics because of their non-profit status, but more important, institutions of learning conceived of themselves as the places on earth most dedicated to discussion, debate, academic freedom, and free inquiry. They didn’t want to stake out a series of specific positions because that could pre-empt efforts to get to the truth through reasoning together.

With the George Floyd tragedy of 2020, the dam seemed to break as universities (and other institutions) faced massive pressure to condemn injustice. The problem was not so much the specific incident as it was the precedent that established a kind of duty to be constantly setting forth a kind of political line for DEI, against Israel, etc. If you were a student or a faculty member with a desire to study or write in a direction that went against one of these public statements, then you would experience what Dartmouth has called “a chilling effect” created by the weight of institutional endorsement.

All of this is not to say that communities of learning can’t stand for something. We can all think of many that do have particular identities (such as Christian colleges), but that is different from turning our institutions into hostages of the zeitgeist expected to announce positions on each issue that arises. When that happens, the individual is left in the unenviable position of constantly having to adapt and try to conform to the demands of some local majority that shifts with the latest controversies in the news. If the institution feels compelled to pronounce on controversial issues, how much more will the mere individual feel pressure to be ideologically correct?

Happily, common sense and a healthy bias for keeping the marketplace of ideas open are beginning to reestablish themselves. Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, and the University of North Carolina have all tilted away from allowing their campuses to be turned into perpetual campaigns. Christians should applaud the new restraint. Activism has its place, but colleges have already been compromised by postmodern power plays that have unleashed dangerous passions and have even emboldened violence and intimidation. Education and political organizing are fundamentally different activities and should stay that way.